Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:26 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440

Arbury Shooting in Georgia and Citizen's Arrest


I'm trying to understand this case and make sure that I've gotten it right before I join with the pitchfork carrying crowd. Everything online is either filled with vitriol or otherwise biased. Here is the GA law on citizen's arrest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Code 17-4-60
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Further, the law is clear that if the two men were privileged to make an arrest, and Arbury fought back and tried to grab their guns, it would be an act of self defense for the men to shoot him.

So, what exactly happened here? There was a video that showed him stopping at a construction site for several minutes, a man called 911 and Arbury is seen running out.

My question: What exactly were these two men told that gave them reason to start chasing Arbury? How long after Arbury exited the construction site did the men catch up with him?
  #2  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:27 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,867
Just asking questions, eh?

Stranger
  #3  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:37 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,464
Basically all the evidence is that by their own declaration they were not privy to having immediately observed any apparent felonious activity that would justify them giving chase and apprehending under the statute. By their own declaration they claimed he "fit the description" of someone they believed to be involved in a since proven nonexistent "series of thefts", which again does not trigger the citizen arrest statute. The matter of his presence at the construction site was brought up AFTER the whole incident had happened and the investigations were under way and the video evidence from the site shows no felonious activity.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-14-2020 at 06:38 PM.
  #4  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:39 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Basically all the evidence is that by their own declaration they were not privy to having immediately observed any apparent felonious activity that would justify them giving chase and apprehending under the statute. By their own declaration they claimed he "fit the description" of someone they believed to be involved in a since proven nonexistent "series of thefts", which again does not trigger the citizen arrest statute. The matter of his presence at the construction site was brought up AFTER the whole incident had happened and the investigations were under way.
Ah, so they did not claim that they were pursuing him for anything related to the construction site? What justification did they use for believing that he was the guy involved in these "series of thefts"?
  #5  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:46 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,820
Do we really not have a thread on this already?

There's a Pit thread on attacking armed guys and getting shot, but no Mundane or IMHO thread? I guess I haven't looked.

UltraVires, from your cited definition, was Arbery's alleged felony offense committed within both McMichael's presence or their immediate knowledge? From the facts I have read, I don't see how the answer is Yes in either instance. Though I guess that can change depending on the definition of "immediate knowledge" of an offense under Georgia case law. I don't think the McMichaels had it.

Reasonable suspicion is a lower hurdle than probable cause, at least.

And with that, I'll bow out.

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 05-14-2020 at 06:47 PM.
  #6  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:47 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
And just to parse the statute, I think it is important to note that it matters not what Arbury did or did not do.

Quote:
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
So this first part is for any crime. So if I personally see someone commit any crime, misdemeanor or felony, I can arrest him. I guess the GA courts have probably ruled on "within his immediate knowledge" but it is not clear from that text. If someone tells me that Arbury stole $1 from him last week, does that bring the crime into my "immediate knowledge"?

Quote:
If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
This doesn't require presence or knowledge, just "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." I'm sure the GA courts have ruled on this as well, but if it is like the probable cause standard, it would matter what was within the minds of these two men as well as the evidence they considered, and again, not ultimately what Arbury did.
  #7  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:50 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Ah, so they did not claim that they were pursuing him for anything related to the construction site? What justification did they use for believing that he was the guy involved in these "series of thefts"?
He looked like a suspicious person and was running through their neighborhood. Seriously. They have not offered anything else to justify the belief he was the guy involved in the supposed series of thefts.

The suspicious person part is most likely because he was black. I doubt they will actually admit that in those words just as much as I doubt you will accept that as a possibility unless they state it that clearly.

ETA: They didn't witness him do jack shit that would have made a normal (ie: not racist) person think he had done something to justify chasing him.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 05-14-2020 at 06:52 PM.
  #8  
Old 05-14-2020, 06:56 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
He looked like a suspicious person and was running through their neighborhood. Seriously. They have not offered anything else to justify the belief he was the guy involved in the supposed series of thefts.
So that's the straight dope. They said that he was a suspicious person running through the neighborhood that they believed was involved in a "series of thefts" that later investigation showed that there was no series of thefts? Did they state why they believed he was the person involved and where these thefts supposedly occurred?

That's the no-bullshit undisputed facts on the ground?
  #9  
Old 05-14-2020, 07:20 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So that's the straight dope. They said that he was a suspicious person running through the neighborhood that they believed was involved in a "series of thefts" that later investigation showed that there was no series of thefts? Did they state why they believed he was the person involved and where these thefts supposedly occurred?

That's the no-bullshit undisputed facts on the ground?
The part I bolded above is not what I said so I can't speak to that. They claimed there was a series of thefts. I have not seen any thing to support or deny that. They gave no reason to pursue him other than he looked suspicious to them and was running. Considering he was in what I would call normal running attire I can only assume his suspicious appearance was related to him being a black man running. I don't expect you to agree with that but I'm open to being surprised.
  #10  
Old 05-14-2020, 07:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
The part I bolded above is not what I said so I can't speak to that. They claimed there was a series of thefts. I have not seen any thing to support or deny that. They gave no reason to pursue him other than he looked suspicious to them and was running. Considering he was in what I would call normal running attire I can only assume his suspicious appearance was related to him being a black man running. I don't expect you to agree with that but I'm open to being surprised.
Why have you twice now attacked me personally and claimed that I would never agree that they did this because he was black? I said that I am trying to make sense of this. I agree with you that if it is true that they only chased him because "he looked suspicious to them and was running" then I would agree with you.
  #11  
Old 05-14-2020, 07:34 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why have you twice now attacked me personally and claimed that I would never agree that they did this because he was black? I said that I am trying to make sense of this. I agree with you that if it is true that they only chased him because "he looked suspicious to them and was running" then I would agree with you.
Sorry if you feel attacked because that wasn't my intent. What do you think could have possibly made him look suspicious to them? From all the information available it is clear they did not witness anything remotely like criminal activity as most reasonable people understand such activity. So, why did these two men think he looked suspicious? Is running in and of its self reason to think a person is behaving suspiciously? Particularly a person dressed in what most reasonable people would recognize as attire typical to people out for a run in public?
  #12  
Old 05-14-2020, 07:40 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
My question: What exactly were these two men told that gave them reason to start chasing Arbury? How long after Arbury exited the construction site did the men catch up with him?
Here is an article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution detailing events in the weeks leading up to this.
  #13  
Old 05-14-2020, 07:50 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,960
They saw a black man running, and thought they'd put a little scare into him for shits and giggles. By chasing him down while armed. Most likely because they are racist assholes.

It turned out badly for them.

That's all there is too it. The rest of it is just pathetic excuses for their criminal behaviour by the usual suspects.
  #14  
Old 05-14-2020, 08:17 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If someone tells me that Arbury stole $1 from him last week, does that bring the crime into my "immediate knowledge"?
It probably is relevant whether or not the person who told you that is correct, does it not?

It doesn't sound like this is a law that lets you just kinda round up suspects, but rather to apprehend people who you are double-dog sure did the thing. It seems that that's what "committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge" is meant to convey. It doesn't state: "A private person may arrest an offender if someone tells that person that someone else committed a crime."

If I tell you that Joe committed murder, does this law allow you to make a citizen's arrest of Joe?
  #15  
Old 05-14-2020, 08:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Further, the law is clear that if the two men were privileged to make an arrest, and Arbury fought back and tried to grab their guns, it would be an act of self defense for the men to shoot him.
Wow...do you really see no problem with this?

Let's say you were walking through your neighborhood, minding your own business, enjoying the nice spring weather.

Two guys show up, point a gun at you and claim they are making a citizen's arrest.

Do you just go with them because, somehow, you think someone claiming they are making a "citizen's arrest" gives them magical legal rights to detain you?

Or, do you think the more likely thing is these two are up to no good, hope to get you quietly in their truck where they can drive you somewhere and finish you off there?

If you resist do they now have a right to shoot you because they "said" citizen's arrest? Resisting makes sense in this case. Women are told that during a rape attempt under no circumstances should they go quietly with the person assaulting them. Why would this be different? Don't go quietly with the people assaulting you and no, saying "citizen's arrest" doesn't change a thing.

Cuz if so then those are magic words. Pull a gun, yell citizen's arrest and then if the person does anything other than lie on the ground and capitulate you have cause to shoot them.

I really wonder how you think things like this are ok.

If actual police stop you, in uniform and working, then yeah...you need to go quietly.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-14-2020 at 08:23 PM.
  #16  
Old 05-14-2020, 08:19 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...So this first part is for any crime. So if I personally see someone commit any crime, misdemeanor or felony, I can arrest him. I guess the GA courts have probably ruled on "within his immediate knowledge" but it is not clear from that text. If someone tells me that Arbury stole $1 from him last week, does that bring the crime into my "immediate knowledge"?



This doesn't require presence or knowledge, just "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." I'm sure the GA courts have ruled on this as well, but if it is like the probable cause standard, it would matter what was within the minds of these two men as well as the evidence they considered, and again, not ultimately what Arbury did.
Thanks. I clearly misread the statute, putting an 'And' in mentally, when really it's two separate clauses. Ignorance fought, and it's a lot cheaper to make this sort of mistake here. I'll try to atone by mentioning that Johnson v. Jackson, 230 S.E.2d 756, (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). looks to be on point for the issue of performing a citizen's arrest on a suspected felon. It's probably been distinguished on that issue since 1976, but it's a place to start.
  #17  
Old 05-14-2020, 08:37 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm trying to understand this case and make sure that I've gotten it right before I join with the pitchfork carrying crowd. Everything online is either filled with vitriol or otherwise biased. Here is the GA law on citizen's arrest.



Further, the law is clear that if the two men were privileged to make an arrest, and Arbury fought back and tried to grab their guns, it would be an act of self defense for the men to shoot him.

So, what exactly happened here? There was a video that showed him stopping at a construction site for several minutes, a man called 911 and Arbury is seen running out.

My question: What exactly were these two men told that gave them reason to start chasing Arbury? How long after Arbury exited the construction site did the men catch up with him?
The other threads on this subject didn't answer those questions to your satisfaction?
  #18  
Old 05-14-2020, 09:11 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
They saw a black man running, and thought they'd put a little scare into him for shits and giggles. By chasing him down while armed. Most likely because they are racist assholes.

It turned out badly for them.

That's all there is too it. The rest of it is just pathetic excuses for their criminal behaviour by the usual suspects.
Turned out worse for Arbury
  #19  
Old 05-14-2020, 09:51 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 60,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsat3acr View Post
Turned out worse for Arbury
Indeed, and even if these two schmucks spend lengthy time in prison (which is by no means a certainty), they'll be considered heroes to a small but vocal subset of the American population.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #20  
Old 05-14-2020, 09:56 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Indeed, and even if these two schmucks spend lengthy time in prison (which is by no means a certainty), they'll be considered heroes to a small but vocal subset of the American population.
Yup...

No one was hurt but the mindset is similar (this happened either yesterday or today...since what happened in the OP):

- Oklahoma delivery man blocked by homeowner group president at gated community thinks race was a factor
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #21  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:23 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And just to parse the statute, I think it is important to note that it matters not what Arbury did or did not do.



So this first part is for any crime. So if I personally see someone commit any crime, misdemeanor or felony, I can arrest him. I guess the GA courts have probably ruled on "within his immediate knowledge" but it is not clear from that text. If someone tells me that Arbury stole $1 from him last week, does that bring the crime into my "immediate knowledge"?
Parse the statute a bit more carefully. The issue is not whether the crime has been brought within your immediate knowledge; it's whether it was committed within your immediate knowledge, even if not in your actual presence. So if you are watching on security camera, say, while it is being committed, then it is committed within your immediate knowledge - i.e. you know directly (not through an intermediary) that the crime is being committed. If you only know about the commission of the crime because someone tells you about it then, no, it's not within your immediate knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This doesn't require presence or knowledge, just "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." I'm sure the GA courts have ruled on this as well, but if it is like the probable cause standard, it would matter what was within the minds of these two men as well as the evidence they considered, and again, not ultimately what Arbury did.
This doesn't require presence or knowledge, but it does require that a felony has in fact been committed, and that the offender is in fact escaping or attempting to escape. Given those facts, if you have reasonable and probable grounds for suspecting that I am that offender, you may arrest me. But your arrest will be unlawful if, in fact, no felony has been committed, or the offender has not escaped or attempted to escape. Your reasonable and probable suspicion that both these things happened will not help you.

Remember, the common law loves liberty. Statutes which restrict your liberty (by giving other people the right to arrest you) will be strictly construed.

Last edited by UDS; 05-15-2020 at 12:25 AM.
  #22  
Old 05-15-2020, 06:59 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Wow...do you really see no problem with this?
The poster never wrote that they see no problem with this; that's all salt your brain sprinkled on after reading neutral text.
  #23  
Old 05-15-2020, 08:24 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The other threads on this subject didn't answer those questions to your satisfaction?
It doesn't seem like those other threads result in the finding that the two guys were acting perfectly reasonably and had grounds to kill Arbury.

Hence, another thread where maybe justification for their actions will be found.
  #24  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:11 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 64,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
It doesn't seem like those other threads result in the finding that the two guys were acting perfectly reasonably and had grounds to kill Arbury.

Hence, another thread where maybe justification for their actions will be found.
I was thinking the same thing.
  #25  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:14 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,779
Arbery. That's how his name was spelled. Not Arbury.
  #26  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:17 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
This doesn't require presence or knowledge, but it does require that a felony has in fact been committed, and that the offender is in fact escaping or attempting to escape. Given those facts, if you have reasonable and probable grounds for suspecting that I am that offender, you may arrest me. But your arrest will be unlawful if, in fact, no felony has been committed, or the offender has not escaped or attempted to escape. Your reasonable and probable suspicion that both these things happened will not help you.
I don't think that's true. I think that the "probable cause" standard modifies both prongs: a private citizen may lawfully arrest someone if he has probable cause that they have committed a felony and probable cause that they are escaping. (But you need both). Take for example the discussion of probable cause and false imprisonment in Collins v. Sadlo, 306 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). It talks at length that "probable cause" is not a defense to false imprisonment, but it's clear that what they're saying is that you need both probable cause of a crime and one of the statutorily enumerated "exigencies" in 17-4-20 (i.e., committed in the presence of the officer; domestic violence; abuse of an elder; escape; or lack of a judicial officer to issue a warrant). See Collins ("Thus, the defendant in a false imprisonment case premised upon a warrantless arrest does not meet his defensive burden merely by demonstrating the existence of probable cause but he must go further and show that the arrest was also effectuated pursuant to one of the 'exigent circumstances' enumerated in OCGA § 17-4-20 (a)"

The "citizen's arrest" statute appears to authorize a warrantless arrest for two of those exigencies (in the presence of the person and escape). So the arrest does not require that a crime actually have been committed or is actually trying to escape, but you need probable cause of both (which makes sense, because the default assumption has to be that you call the authorities and they get a warrant).
  #27  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:19 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,812
Prayor v. State:

"Defendant asserts that the statute authorizing citizens' arrests implies that whatever force is necessary may be used to arrest a fleeing felon, and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the use of deadly force was limited to certain circumstances. We find no merit to this contention."

" Moreover, OCGA § 17-4-60 merely authorizes a private person to make an arrest under certain circumstances; it does not prescribe the amount of force that may be used in effecting a valid arrest. The transcript reveals the charge given by the trial court was taken from the Supreme Court case of Hayes v. State, 261 Ga. 439, 443 (6) (a) (405 SE2d 660) (1991), wherein that Court stated *58 as follows: "OCGA § 17-4-60 provides that a private citizen may make an arrest if a felony is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. A private citizen may make an arrest upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion if the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or trying to escape. For a citizen's arrest to be valid, the citizen must use no more force than is reasonable under the circumstances. . . . Also, . .. deadly force in effecting an arrest is limited to self-defense or to a situation in which it is necessary to prevent a forcible felony." Id.

The shoddiness of the initial investigation and the attempted coverup by the local DA's office will make the case much more difficult to prove. While it seems clear to me that there was no "forcible felony" committed to provide the allowance of the use of deadly force, the defendants are white and the defendant is black, so who knows what a Georgia jury is going to do with it.
  #28  
Old 05-15-2020, 09:28 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And just to parse the statute, I think it is important to note that it matters not what Arbury did or did not do.



So this first part is for any crime. So if I personally see someone commit any crime, misdemeanor or felony, I can arrest him. I guess the GA courts have probably ruled on "within his immediate knowledge" but it is not clear from that text. If someone tells me that Arbury stole $1 from him last week, does that bring the crime into my "immediate knowledge"?
No. "Immediate knowledge" means that it is brought to your attention immediately that a person is committing a crime.

The McMichaels fit neither. They said themselves that they thought Arbery fit the description of someone who had committed burglaries in the previous couple of months. In Georgia that is nowhere near the standard for a citizen's arrest.

According to Georgia law, ARBERY was standing his ground.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #29  
Old 05-15-2020, 10:31 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
The poster never wrote that they see no problem with this; that's all salt your brain sprinkled on after reading neutral text.
He wrote:

"Further, the law is clear that if the two men were privileged to make an arrest, and Arbury fought back and tried to grab their guns, it would be an act of self defense for the men to shoot him."

Followed by a question expressing some confusion as to what, exactly, the problem is here.

I think it is glaringly obvious and even if a law is so pernicious only the dimmest of people would merely suggest that the law says so therefore no problem. Whatever my disagreements with the OP I do not think they are stupid.

No salt needed.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #30  
Old 05-15-2020, 11:22 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
He wrote:
nothing about there being no problem. That's all you.
  #31  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:00 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism … Couldn't have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.

Srsly.
  #32  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:05 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism … Couldn't have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.

Srsly.
  #33  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:17 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism … Couldn't have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.

Srsly.
I guess you could go through the history of those two alleged murderers to see if they've also chased down and threatened white joggers running through their neighborhood. I'd bet on that research, but betting is not allowed on this board.

How many times do you think they've chased and blocked white joggers? Just a guess is fine? Zero? Zilch? Null? Nada? Cero? Nula? ゼロ? Nul? Pagh? Probably one of those.

Oh, but he matched the description of someone who committed non-existent robberies in the neighborhood. What do you think that match was based on? Shoe size? Eye color? Handedness? Accent? Auto repair proficiency? Length of his fingernails?
  #34  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:24 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism …
As long as you are building strawmen with hyperbole, doesn't it get tiresome defending racists all the time?
Quote:
Couldn't have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.

Srsly.
And what reason do you think that these people hunted down this jogger and killed him?

Welcome to give the benefit of the doubt here. But, they didn't see him commit any crimes, and at best, he "fit the description" of someone who may have committed some crimes that apparently never actually happened.

And yes, if you hunt down someone for "fitting a description", and the only similarity that they have is the color of their skin, then it's pretty hard to not chalk that up to racism.

So, what is your defense? What evidence can you provide that would suggest these people would have hunted down and shot a white jogger who happened to be in the same wrong place at the wrong time? It could have been something else, but nothing else has emerged as a rational reason for them to hunt and kill another human being, other than the color of his skin.

You are positive it wasn't racism; make your case. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels and doing your best to derail the rest of us.

If it's hard to for you to stand on the "side of right", then maybe it's because you just don't want to be there, and are blaming your company as an excuse to go join the "side of wrong". If it makes you laugh when white men hunt down and kill black men who did absolutely nothing wrong, then you probably do not like the company of those who would object to such a thing.
  #35  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:27 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This doesn't require presence or knowledge, just "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." I'm sure the GA courts have ruled on this as well, but if it is like the probable cause standard, it would matter what was within the minds of these two men as well as the evidence they considered, and again, not ultimately what Arbury did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Further, the law is clear that if the two men were privileged to make an arrest, and Arbury fought back and tried to grab their guns, it would be an act of self defense for the men to shoot him.
So let's review the bidding:

1) If I'm in Georgia, going about my lawful business, and some people have "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" (which very much depends on "what was within the minds of these two men" as you say) that I've committed a felony, and they interpret my actions as I go about my business as "escaping or attempting to escape," they are empowered to grab their guns and attempt to arrest me.

2) Now if I have no idea what the everloving fuck is going on in their heads, and I interpret their pursuing and stopping me as an attack on my person and try to prevent them from shooting me, they have the right to kill me in self-defense??

IANAL, so for all I know, that's what Georgia law adds up to. But if it does, that's one motherfucking crazy set of laws.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 05-15-2020 at 12:28 PM.
  #36  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:29 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism
Actually, of these five news stories, I only blame one on racism. Guess which one?
1) Retail sales plunged 16.4% in April, a record decline
2) Trump’s company has received at least $970,000 from U.S. taxpayers for room rentals
3) Florida wildfires torch over 5,000 acres, shut down parts of ‘Alligator Alley’
4) Biden says he does not remember Tara Reade
5) Europe bids adieu to cheek kiss in coronavirus era
6) Kenneth Cole wants to fight mental health stigma — and he’s enlisted Kendall Jenner and a host of experts to help
7) CDC offers checklists on reopening to guide businesses, schools, others
8) Airbnb creates a new listing: Its laid-off workers
9) North Dakota businesses dominated the PPP. Their secret weapon? A century-old bank founded by radical progressives.
10) Ahmaud Arbery case puts spotlight on community’s race legacy

The idea that everything is being blamed on racism, not just cases where two white men chase after a black man in the Deep South and confront him with a shotgun before shooting him dead, is as odious as it is intellectually bankrupt.


Quote:
Srsly.
Srsly indeed.
  #37  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:34 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 86,274
The most obvious rebuttal to the OP's implied argument is that the Georgia law he quotes only applies to people who have committed a felony. Arbery had not. Trespassing is a misdemeanor in Georgia.

The citizen's arrest law also contains no provision that authorizes a private person to use force or the threat of force in carrying out their arrest. The McMichaels had no legal authority to point a gun at Arbery in order to carry out their arrest.

From a legal standpoint, what McMichael did was approach a person in public and threaten him with a gun. At this point, Arbery was legally justified, under Georgia law, to defend himself:

Quote:
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force
McMichael is not allowed to make a counter-claim that he was defending himself from Arbery when they fought for control of the gun. As noted above, McMichael started the incident by pointing the gun at Arbery and Georgia law specifically exempts self-defense claims by a person who "initially provokes the use of force against himself".
  #38  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:39 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 33,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If someone tells me that Arbury stole $1 from him last week, does that bring the crime into my "immediate knowledge"?
Based on my understanding of the meaning of the word "immediate," I'd be inclined to say "No."

Sounds more like "hearsay." The person you heard say it is a mediate entity between you and the actual knowledge, which violates the meaning of the word "immediate" (without mediate entities).
  #39  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:45 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Actually, of these five news stories, I only blame one on racism. Guess which one?
7) CDC offers checklists on reopening to guide businesses, schools, others
I know for a fact that the checklists are printed on white paper, and THAT'S racism.
  #40  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:57 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 33,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Actually, of these five news stories, I only blame one on racism. Guess which one?
1) Retail sales plunged 16.4% in April, a record decline
2) Trump’s company has received at least $970,000 from U.S. taxpayers for room rentals
3) Florida wildfires torch over 5,000 acres, shut down parts of ‘Alligator Alley’
4) Biden says he does not remember Tara Reade
5) Europe bids adieu to cheek kiss in coronavirus era
6) Kenneth Cole wants to fight mental health stigma — and he’s enlisted Kendall Jenner and a host of experts to help
7) CDC offers checklists on reopening to guide businesses, schools, others
8) Airbnb creates a new listing: Its laid-off workers
9) North Dakota businesses dominated the PPP. Their secret weapon? A century-old bank founded by radical progressives.
10) Ahmaud Arbery case puts spotlight on community’s race legacy

The idea that everything is being blamed on racism, not just cases where two white men chase after a black man in the Deep South and confront him with a shotgun before shooting him dead, is as odious as it is intellectually bankrupt.




Srsly indeed.
You misspelled "ten."
  #41  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:59 PM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
As noted above, McMichael started the incident by pointing the gun at Arbery and Georgia law specifically exempts self-defense claims by a person who "initially provokes the use of force against himself".
I agree with basically everything else you said. But, Georgia law prohibits self-defense claims by "[i]nitially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant". (emphasis added).

It may be that the purpose of confronting Arbery was to provoke a violent altercation to allow the use of force in response but I think it would be difficult to show that this was the intent, at least based on what he currently know. I mean, I agree that Arbery could defend himself in this situation, but if he unnecessarily escalated the force (and he didn't), I don't think that provision would prevent a counter-escalation.

Last edited by Falchion; 05-15-2020 at 12:59 PM.
  #42  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:16 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
nothing about there being no problem. That's all you.
The OP is, literally, asking what the problem is because the OP can't see it after noting that apparently there is a law that makes it all legal and because the guy fought it was ok to shoot him.

There is no reflection from the OP if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Seems more like JAQing off to me.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-15-2020 at 01:17 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:17 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
You misspelled "ten."
Goddammit. I started writing the list then got ambitious. Thought I'd fixed this.
  #44  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It must really get tiresome blaming anything and everything on racism … Couldn't have been any thing else no? Possible suspicion based upon anything other than the color of a persons skin is improbable. That shit makes me laugh every time, and worse it makes it incredibly hard to stand on the side of right when that side thinks that they are right for the wrong reasons.

Srsly.
A single incident, perhaps. But when it happens again and again and again, and it's almost always white people putting black people, who are just going about their lives, in danger, then it's pretty reasonable to suspect that racism is involved in most of these incidents.

Further, racism is pernicious and often unconscious. These folks may have really thought this guy was a criminal... but his skin color was probably a big part of that judgment, whether they realized it or not.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-15-2020 at 01:56 PM.
  #45  
Old 05-15-2020, 03:44 PM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 3,058
Aside from the McMichaels' claims after the fact, do we have any indication that they were, in fact, putting Arbery under citizen's arrest?

The whole citizen's arrest point is probably moot, however

Quote:
Force can only be used to prevent a violent felony, Mr. Zimmerman said, adding, “What is not lawful is, you can’t detain somebody and then use force.”
Zimmerman is the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

So that defense is out. The McMichaels' only hope then would be claiming they acted in self-defense, which begs the question: If someone presents a clear and present danger to me, and I act in self-defense, can the perpetrator of the incident claim self-defense if he kills me while I'm defending myself because he thinks I might kill him (in self-defense)?
  #46  
Old 05-15-2020, 04:26 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 8,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The most obvious rebuttal to the OP's implied argument is that the Georgia law he quotes only applies to people who have committed a felony. Arbery had not. Trespassing is a misdemeanor in Georgia.
But his presence on the construction site seems irrelevant in any case, since the McMichaels (by their own testimony) had no knowledge of it when they pursued him, that surveillance video only came to light later. They just saw him running past their yard, and claimed to suspect him of burglaries or thefts days or weeks earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

Quote:
The report describes Gregory McMichael as a witness, who said he initially was in the yard of his house when he saw Arbery running by. He said he recognized Arbery from prior incidents, including one where Gregory said he saw Arbery reach into his pants as if for a weapon....

...the McMichaels told police that they pursued Arbery because he resembled a suspect in a string of local burglaries. There were three break-ins or thefts reported in Satilla Shores in the months prior to the incident. On December 8, a Satilla Shores neighbor reported rifles stolen from their unlocked car. Police records next reported a theft on December 28. On January 1, Travis McMichael filed a report of a firearm stolen from his truck. On February 11, Travis McMichael again called police to report a 6-foot-tall black man trespassing on the site of a house under construction. Police responded and searched along with several neighbors, but the man escaped.
Comments by Falchion and Hamlet above seem to give some comfort on whether the interpretation of citizen's arrest laws is reasonable. Even if there were a genuine resemblance to the perpetrator, with the obvious potential for error and for escalation of violence it seems insane to me that any law would justify a civilian attempting to forcibly "arrest" someone when the suspected crime was non-violent and occurred days or weeks earlier, and when the "suspect" is currently doing nothing wrong and is no threat to anyone.

Last edited by Riemann; 05-15-2020 at 04:31 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-15-2020, 04:39 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
But his presence on the construction site seems irrelevant in any case, since the McMichaels (by their own testimony) had no knowledge of it when they pursued him, that surveillance video only came to light later. They just saw him running past their yard, and claimed to suspect him of burglaries or thefts days or weeks earlier.
Also, is merely being at the construction site enough reason to be suspicious and chase the guy? Did they know he wasn't the owner? On what basis could they assume this guy was up to no good an needed pursuing (much less shooting)?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #48  
Old 05-15-2020, 06:13 PM
Sdowiat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 61

Proof?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
They saw a black man running, and thought they'd put a little scare into him for shits and giggles. By chasing him down while armed. Most likely because they are racist assholes.

It turned out badly for them.

That's all there is too it. The rest of it is just pathetic excuses for their criminal behaviour by the usual suspects.


It would truly be TERRIBLE if that is the case and for it I'd give them the Chair... but do you have anything to back this up? Have you got some kind of insight into their motivations?
  #49  
Old 05-15-2020, 06:35 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sdowiat View Post
It would truly be TERRIBLE if that is the case and for it I'd give them the Chair... but do you have anything to back this up? Have you got some kind of insight into their motivations?
We can never know what these people thought at the time. Maybe they will tell us. Maybe they will lie when/if they tell us and even then there is no reason to trust what they say.
What we can do is consider what a reasonable person would do. And no reasonable person would do what they did.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-15-2020 at 06:38 PM.
  #50  
Old 05-15-2020, 06:37 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
Yes, in fact, we do have insight into their motivations.

Insight #1: If they are not completely insane, then they have motivations for the things they do.
Insight #2: Their stated motivations have turned out to be blatant lies.
Insight #3: Their lying must also have had motivation.
Insight #4: The likely motive behind their lying is that the actual motive for the shooting was a reprehensible one.
Insight #5: Racism is one possible reprehensible motive for the shooting.
Insight #6: Racism is an extremely common reprehensible motive in this country, especially in that part of the country.

But if you think that's an unfair conclusion, then you can go ahead and tell us what you think their motive was, and why they lied about it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017